5 ms·

Thats why I hate these Greta style "climate activists", since they only focus on climate, as if thats the only bad shit going on concerning environment. And eve

by antocv 7y ago

Thats why I hate these Greta style "climate activists", since they only focus on climate, as if thats the only bad shit going on concerning environment. And even so, they are wrong about "apocalypse" style of events. Even if you solve atmospheric conditions, CO2 and temperature, still you have the pollution of the waters, mass extinctions due to habitat loss, car-tyres rubbering off everywhere, unknown untested toxins even on your cloths. Thats like, not talked about. EDIT: Cant believe somebody downvoted you. Yes nature has done fast changes, faster than human-induced change currently, and "nature" has mass-exterminated most of its life several times over, and other forms of life caused the deaths and biological disaster for most of other life on earth as well. These are facts. Somehow these Greata climate activists, would like to believe that humans are more powerful in their destruction than cyanobacteria. Wishful thinking really.

saagarjha 7y ago
What makes you think she doesn’t care about other aspects of the environment? She’s just focusing on climate change because it has an effect on all of those things too.
- roenxi 7y ago
  The currently vocal environmentalist movement started from the left and picked up a lot more in the way of anti-capitalist sentiment, strong overtones of guilt and a real push to undertake acts of repentance and sacrifice. Their focus has pronounced overtones of repentance for our sins against the environment and has some very classically Christian themes. Things like the 'how dare you' comment to the UN help brand her as part of that specific branch of the environmentalist movement. She may personally care about who knows what, but the phenomenon that she looks to represent is a specific branch of environmentalism that is pushing different agenda to general environmental concerns. The environment-should-serve-humans-and-be-managed-to-do-so style environmentalists that used to be present in Australian right-wing politics have all but disappeared as the environmental issues they cared about are drowned out by people like Greta. I expect that has happened elsewhere too, and it is very easy to imagine that they don't see people like Greta as representing the environmental conservation issues they care about. The rather important concepts of practical sustainable living are drowned out by apocalyptic doomsayers who imply that the environmental costs of the rise of China and India are too great. Which just isn't going to gain traction, China and India represent 35% of the worlds population. We aren't going to give the environment some sort of primacy over the material comfort of 35% of the worlds population. People first, environment second. (My favourite graph at present: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita#/media/File:2018_AQAL_Group_variwide_chart_%22Worldwide_Co2_emissions%22.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di... )
- pjc50 7y ago
  Indeed. "Greta is focusing on the wrong things, therefore we should do nothing" is a terrible argument.
  - antocv 7y ago
    Thats not my argument, if you listen carefully to all climatists, they are trying to reduce the scope of the issue down to CO2. They are trying to use soft means like climate meetings and "targets of CO2", instead of spurring eco terrorism and beginning violence to save the planet. Thats a terrible path to take, to just "lets hold each others hands and sign really nice and come to a solution". When the problem is caused by the same oppressive relationships now as it was 2000 years ago - slavery, and can only be solved with violence.
chrisco255 7y ago
Agreed, I think there's bigger problems than mild warming. As far as I can tell, mild warming is usually good for the human race and for ecological health, such as plant growth. For example, leaf area index has increased by 8% since the 80s. CO2 is fertilizing plant growth. https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0236.1 https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0236... https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fer... If you listen to a lot of the hype, it seems it's all bad, when really it's a mixed bag of complex trade offs.
- GeneralPie 7y ago
  This is a common denialist point and is unfortunately a massive oversimplification, there is a hard limit to this increase. Plants are limited by far more than co2 https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
EsssM7QVMehFPAs 7y ago
Your argument being? That human-induced global warming affecting the life of millions, potentially billions of people, should be ignored because worse has happened in Earth's history? Because humans also adversely affect different parameters of the environment? Also, it is easy to pinpoint this issue to a little girl from Sweden, but unfortunately she is just repeating the general scientific consensus. Harder to argue against that, is it?
- arethuza 7y ago
  "Harder to argue against that, is it?" I'm beginning to think that countering illogical arguments with logical ones is actually some kind of tactical error in many situations - I have no idea what the alternative is but I increasingly feel that it is too easy to goad people (particularly those with some kind of scientific training) into types of arguments that really don't resonate with a lot of people.
- antocv 7y ago
  > Your argument being? That human-induced global warming affecting the life of millions, potentially billions of people, should be ignored because worse has happened in Earth's history? Because humans also adversely affect different parameters of the environment? No. My argument is, fuck the climatists, and their self-good crusade, since its not good, and their suggested solutions would actually cause more poverty and hurt poor people more. My argument is, the rich are the problem, not pollution per se. 0.1% of the world population can pollute and destroy the environment of the rest. They can even ensalve the rest without destroying the environment. Thats where the problem lies, oppression of the very few on the many, thats the problem we need to solve. The "climate atmospherists" are a side-show, stealing the light from the real issues. EDIT: scientific consensus Im not arguing against sci consensus, this climate issue is not "science" its politics, and should be treated as such. Everything is politics, remember that.
patentatt 7y ago
So your opinion just happens to benefit the fossil fuel industry and requires no effort on your part? Is that a coincidence?
- chrisco255 7y ago
  The fossil fuel industry is not inherently bad. You understand that prior to the invention of the internal combustion engines and electricity, the world was a really rough place. Life expectancy has more than doubled in the last 120 years. And natural disasters aren't even in the top 50 ways to die in 2019. A 100 years ago, more than a million people a year were dying from natural disasters. Last year, it was 11,000 worldwide. That is despite the human population going up 8x in that timeframe. It is not the crisis that people are hyping it up to be.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    The risk is not only from natural disasters directly, but the changes in habitability that show up as a result, and the refugee flows and resource wars that are expected to happen.
- antocv 7y ago
  No, my opinion does not benefit fossil fuel industry, my opinion is - we should burn the gas stations to the ground, stick a potato up every SUV you see, toss tyre-destructing spikes on every road. Kidnap CEOs of the fossil fuel industry, and citizen-jail Monsanto managers, you know... disruption.
monadgonad 7y ago
> Even if you solve atmospheric conditions, CO2 and temperature, still you have the pollution of the waters, mass extinctions due to habitat loss, car-tyres rubbering off everywhere, unknown untested toxins even on your cloths. Thats like, not talked about. Have you been living under a rock? They're talked about all the time.
xtian 7y ago
“Even if you solve atmospheric conditions, CO2 and temperature, still you have the pollution of the waters, mass extinctions due to habitat loss, car-tyres rubbering off everywhere, unknown untested toxins even on your cloths. Thats like, not talked about.” This is how I know you've never engaged seriously with climate activists. These things are definitely talked about.

by antocv 7y ago

saagarjha 7y ago

What makes you think she doesn’t care about other aspects of the environment? She’s just focusing on climate change because it has an effect on all of those things too.

roenxi 7y ago
The currently vocal environmentalist movement started from the left and picked up a lot more in the way of anti-capitalist sentiment, strong overtones of guilt and a real push to undertake acts of repentance and sacrifice. Their focus has pronounced overtones of repentance for our sins against the environment and has some very classically Christian themes. Things like the 'how dare you' comment to the UN help brand her as part of that specific branch of the environmentalist movement. She may personally care about who knows what, but the phenomenon that she looks to represent is a specific branch of environmentalism that is pushing different agenda to general environmental concerns. The environment-should-serve-humans-and-be-managed-to-do-so style environmentalists that used to be present in Australian right-wing politics have all but disappeared as the environmental issues they cared about are drowned out by people like Greta. I expect that has happened elsewhere too, and it is very easy to imagine that they don't see people like Greta as representing the environmental conservation issues they care about. The rather important concepts of practical sustainable living are drowned out by apocalyptic doomsayers who imply that the environmental costs of the rise of China and India are too great. Which just isn't going to gain traction, China and India represent 35% of the worlds population. We aren't going to give the environment some sort of primacy over the material comfort of 35% of the worlds population. People first, environment second. (My favourite graph at present: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita#/media/File:2018_AQAL_Group_variwide_chart_%22Worldwide_Co2_emissions%22.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di... )
pjc50 7y ago
Indeed. "Greta is focusing on the wrong things, therefore we should do nothing" is a terrible argument.
- antocv 7y ago
  Thats not my argument, if you listen carefully to all climatists, they are trying to reduce the scope of the issue down to CO2. They are trying to use soft means like climate meetings and "targets of CO2", instead of spurring eco terrorism and beginning violence to save the planet. Thats a terrible path to take, to just "lets hold each others hands and sign really nice and come to a solution". When the problem is caused by the same oppressive relationships now as it was 2000 years ago - slavery, and can only be solved with violence.

chrisco255 7y ago

Agreed, I think there's bigger problems than mild warming. As far as I can tell, mild warming is usually good for the human race and for ecological health, such as plant growth. For example, leaf area index has increased by 8% since the 80s. CO2 is fertilizing plant growth. https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0236.1 https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0236... https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fer... If you listen to a lot of the hype, it seems it's all bad, when really it's a mixed bag of complex trade offs.

GeneralPie 7y ago
This is a common denialist point and is unfortunately a massive oversimplification, there is a hard limit to this increase. Plants are limited by far more than co2 https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

EsssM7QVMehFPAs 7y ago

Your argument being? That human-induced global warming affecting the life of millions, potentially billions of people, should be ignored because worse has happened in Earth's history? Because humans also adversely affect different parameters of the environment? Also, it is easy to pinpoint this issue to a little girl from Sweden, but unfortunately she is just repeating the general scientific consensus. Harder to argue against that, is it?

arethuza 7y ago
"Harder to argue against that, is it?" I'm beginning to think that countering illogical arguments with logical ones is actually some kind of tactical error in many situations - I have no idea what the alternative is but I increasingly feel that it is too easy to goad people (particularly those with some kind of scientific training) into types of arguments that really don't resonate with a lot of people.
antocv 7y ago
> Your argument being? That human-induced global warming affecting the life of millions, potentially billions of people, should be ignored because worse has happened in Earth's history? Because humans also adversely affect different parameters of the environment? No. My argument is, fuck the climatists, and their self-good crusade, since its not good, and their suggested solutions would actually cause more poverty and hurt poor people more. My argument is, the rich are the problem, not pollution per se. 0.1% of the world population can pollute and destroy the environment of the rest. They can even ensalve the rest without destroying the environment. Thats where the problem lies, oppression of the very few on the many, thats the problem we need to solve. The "climate atmospherists" are a side-show, stealing the light from the real issues. EDIT: scientific consensus Im not arguing against sci consensus, this climate issue is not "science" its politics, and should be treated as such. Everything is politics, remember that.

patentatt 7y ago

So your opinion just happens to benefit the fossil fuel industry and requires no effort on your part? Is that a coincidence?

chrisco255 7y ago
The fossil fuel industry is not inherently bad. You understand that prior to the invention of the internal combustion engines and electricity, the world was a really rough place. Life expectancy has more than doubled in the last 120 years. And natural disasters aren't even in the top 50 ways to die in 2019. A 100 years ago, more than a million people a year were dying from natural disasters. Last year, it was 11,000 worldwide. That is despite the human population going up 8x in that timeframe. It is not the crisis that people are hyping it up to be.
- pjc50 7y ago
  The risk is not only from natural disasters directly, but the changes in habitability that show up as a result, and the refugee flows and resource wars that are expected to happen.
antocv 7y ago
No, my opinion does not benefit fossil fuel industry, my opinion is - we should burn the gas stations to the ground, stick a potato up every SUV you see, toss tyre-destructing spikes on every road. Kidnap CEOs of the fossil fuel industry, and citizen-jail Monsanto managers, you know... disruption.

monadgonad 7y ago

> Even if you solve atmospheric conditions, CO2 and temperature, still you have the pollution of the waters, mass extinctions due to habitat loss, car-tyres rubbering off everywhere, unknown untested toxins even on your cloths. Thats like, not talked about. Have you been living under a rock? They're talked about all the time.

xtian 7y ago

“Even if you solve atmospheric conditions, CO2 and temperature, still you have the pollution of the waters, mass extinctions due to habitat loss, car-tyres rubbering off everywhere, unknown untested toxins even on your cloths. Thats like, not talked about.” This is how I know you've never engaged seriously with climate activists. These things are definitely talked about.